Final Words

The Toshiba OCZ RD400 is aimed at the very top segment of the consumer SSD market where the primary goal is to get the highest possible performance. The suggested retail prices aren't quite top of the line, which signals that performance expectations should be a bit lower than "the fastest that money can buy" but it needs to be in the ballpark. With the current state of the market, being a "mid-range" PCIe SSD can still mean being the second fastest drive available.

The RD400 only sets a few performance records but elsewhere it at stays close to the PCIe SSD competition and is much faster than any SATA drive. The once formidable Intel SSD 750 can now only top the charts on one benchmark and is simply too expensive for today's market, but it does retain the distinction of being the sole 2.5" U.2 SSD for the consumer market. Against the Samsung 950 Pro, the RD400 of the same capacity is usually slower, but the difference would be hard to feel during interactive use.

Looking outside the direct Samsung comparisons, the 1TB RD400 provides a capacity that Samsung doesn't yet offer, but it comes at a premium and the increased capacity doesn't provide much of a performance increase over the 512GB model. The 128GB RD400 on the other hand is smaller than any 950 Pro and thus competes mainly against grey market OEM Samsung SM951s that don't come with the nice 5-year warranty that Toshiba offers.

On the other hand, comparing the RD400 against SATA SSDs is tricky. At first glance, it may seem straightforward that a drive with two to three times the performance on most benchmarks is a good deal for a mere 30-50% price increase. But increased SSD performance brings diminishing returns for real-world use. PCIe SSDs are not yet mainstream products and are not a good value for consumers who aren't very sure that they will benefit noticeably from faster storage. Upgrading from a mechanical hard drive to a SSD alleviates a major performance bottleneck but the experience of moving from SATA SSDs to PCIe SSDs is not as revolutionary. I suspect most consumers would be better served with a larger SSD of moderate performance than a cramped but blazing fast PCIe drive, but for those who have the means and a need, the RD400 is a flagship halo product that unquestionably satisfies its purpose.

High-End SSD Price Comparison
Drive 960GB-
1.2TB
400GB-
512GB
240GB-
256GB
120GB-
128GB
OCZ RD400A (AIC) $759.99 $329.99 $189.99 $129.99
OCZ RD400 (M.2 only) $739.99 $309.99 $169.99 $109.99
Samsung 950 Pro   $316.99 $178.00  
Samsung 850 Pro $416.87 $219.21 $126.99 $90.60
Intel SSD 750 $1199.99 $349.99    
SanDisk Extreme Pro $340.60 $183.00 $104.99  
Samsung 850 EVO $319.99 $149.99 $88.39 $66.80

The RD400 does have some downsides other than not being the absolute fastest drive on the market. Our testing showed it to be significantly more power-hungry than the Samsung 950 Pro, which suggests it may be less suitable for laptop use. The higher power consumption is likely due to a combination of a less efficient controller and NAND that needs more power, but we don't have enough information to pin down the primary cause.

Overall the high power consumption in the small M.2 package also makes heat a somewhat greater concern. Like the Samsung 950 Pro, the RD400 strikes a precarious balance of performance against temperature. During our most intensive tests the OCZ SSD utility put up several alerts that thermal throttling had been engaged due to the drive's temperature. The temperature never got close to the critical level where damage to the drive is possible, but performance was negatively affected. Another round of testing is underway with the RD400s in our usual PCIe to M.2 adapter to investigate how the drive is affected by less effective cooling and how its power consumption differs when fed a direct 3.3V supply instead of using OCZ's adapter to convert 12V down to 3.3V. I suspect these tests will probably show that the RD400 is still inferior to the Samsung 950 Pro for laptop use.

Overall the Toshiba OCZ RD400 earns its place as a high-end SSD. It delivers great performance all around with no major weaknesses and is a solid competitor to the Samsung 950 Pro. It is roughly the second-fastest client SSD on the market and with pricing that promises to undercut the 950 Pro it should be a great value and a very welcome source of competitive pressure.

ATTO, AS-SSD & Idle Power Consumption
Comments Locked

40 Comments

View All Comments

  • Samus - Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - link

    I'm sure a multi billion dollar conglomerate decided to convert the 12v PCIe rail over drawing from the weak 3.3v rail for a reason. Probably something as simple as firmware flashing compatibility. Flashing firmware causes enormous voltage spikes that would easily surpass 10 watts @ 3.3v
  • jjj - Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - link

    It's a bit weird to state that the Samsung is the fastest when it loses in write and mixed workloads.
    Your own benchmark is read heavy but maybe not all readers care most about read perf.
  • LostWander - Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - link

    Read seems to be the most common trait people look for, so if they had to pick one I would agree on that. Kinda odd to give it the title though with no single drive leading in more than a couple benchmarks, it's only "the fastest" in relatively specific categories
  • Billy Tallis - Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - link

    The Samsung 950 Pro is clearly faster on the ATSB Heavy test which writes more than twice as much data as it reads. If you have a workload that is so much more write heavy that the RD400 comes out ahead, then it's quite atypical and you shouldn't expect our general-audience recommendations to apply.
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - link

    If you're mostly writing data that never gets read back again, you're one of the use cases that really still does work well with much cheaper spinning rust.
  • jjj - Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - link

    And yet you have more read IOs. Would be interesting to see what you get if you remove at least games and web from that test.
    Another factor to consider is when you need the perf and when you don't.
    I wouldn't buy a drive like this for web browsing or watching video.Would prefer the drive not to choke when you really put pressure on it.
    Write is also trailing far behind in data rates and that's not great, do you really like such an unbalanced drive? When your verdict is all about read perf ,maybe a more granular verdict is better. If you would do the math in % for read, write and mixed who wins?
    Maybe i am being lazy but can't seem to find any info on multitasking and the system used. Do any of the tests run multiple things at once and are you using an 8 cores? With Zen arriving soon 8 cores/16 threads should become much more popular as the die should be pretty small -y guess somewhere between 99 and 131mm2.
    The Samsung feels like a mobile SoC that throttles.Does great when you don't really need the perf but lets you down when you need it. That being said, looking forward to Samsung's new drives (961), on paper those are much better.
  • Impulses - Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - link

    Have you actually used an SM951 or 950 Pro? I've been running one for a while and I don't find the SoC comparison very accurate, mine has a decent amount of airflow going over it (tho it's still near a hot GPU)...

    AT's own tests proved throttling, when it does happen, wasn't a big deal.

    I guess if you're constantly dumping GBs upon GBs of data on one from an equally fast source then yeah, it's gonna be throttle city, but that's not the usage case I see for them.

    At least given the current capacity/costs...
  • jjj - Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - link

    You misunderstood, the comparison wasn't about the cause but the effect. Here the weakness is write and mixed workloads but the effect is similar, it lets you down when you need it most.
  • stux - Thursday, May 26, 2016 - link

    I use one of the Sm951s in an AngelBird PCI adapter. Takes care of the throttling issue, it never goes above 41C.

    And it's fantastic :)
  • theduckofdeath - Wednesday, May 25, 2016 - link

    For a consumer PC read performance is nearly infinitely more relevant than random write performance. That's probably why. :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now